Dear Andrew, Thank you for your message. On 18/06/2016, Andrew Lancaster via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Dear Richard > > You are mixing two questions a bit in my opinion. Actually, my post included a question followed by some observations on one genealogical wiki. > 1. In terms of software platform, wikitree uses its own, which they > developed from the more standard ones, and I don't think anyone else can > use it for free. There are specific things they have developed like the > uncertain option, which are not standard on a wiki. There are also > things they removed from the standard, such as talk pages. Wikipedia is > the standard format of software available, even if not necessarily the > type of editing community you are looking for. If you look at Wikipedia > you'll see how the talk pages are like articles attached to articles > which record any discussed needed between editors. (Wikitree have pushed > all discussions to either small text boxes for comments on each article, > or separate forums which are not so simply connected to individual > articles.) Yes, I see that. I have continued to observe how Wikitree operates. > 2. The quality of editing, and of editors, is not connected to the > software. Your remark below is a bit like saying that you saw spelling > mistakes in an example of a Word document, so now you are concerned > about using Word? :) Well it is insofar as there is nothing built into the software to ensure that there is a documentary basis for toggling this item on or off. In other words, the software does not appear to have been designed to ensure proper standards are maintained in this instance. > Basically in the end wiki software is just like Word or Google Docs or > whatever: a platform for typing into. Specifically it was designed to > help groups work on something which is going to be in discrete > inter-linked articles, when the work will be done by multiple editors > who want to be able to work online and at the same time. It occurs to me that unless one is in on the planning stages for the creation of such wiki software one is likely to be limited in how one can expect it to be designed to meet the requirements of one's data, and sourcing thereof. > Here is the Wikipedia article for Wikis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki > > It links to a list of typical software used. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wiki_software > > The best known software is Mediawiki: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki > > If you don't want to set-up a server yourself there are options like > Wikia ("wikifarms"). I notice that these days the mass of wikis using > this are connected to fan movements, like for example wikis about > fictional worlds in games, movies and books. (But that is clearly not > going to mean that any wiki using that software will become like a fan > wiki.) > > Here are more wikifarms: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_hosting_services Thank you for this information. Richard C-Z

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 4:29:28 AM UTC+10, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote: > We can´t be sure the line breaks down we don´t have enough information > to say who is the mother of William but the genealogists seem to > support Millicent. Who are the genealogists whose support for Millicent impresses you? For at least 100 years there has been direct evidence in print that Richard de Camville married twice (his own charter for Jumièges, dated 1170, naming both wives). This supplemented indirect evidence long known that at least his eldest son Gerard was apparently too old to have been Millicent's son (her first husband was killed in 1143/44 according to William of Newburgh, whereas Richard founded Combe abbey in 1150 with the assent of his son and heir Gerard ("quod et feci concessu et favore ... filii mei et hæredis Gerardi"). The same charter refers to Richard's children ("pro salute animæ meæ et uxoris meæ, liberorumque meorum") but the only family members witnessing the donation were his son Gerard and his brother Hugo - from this it could be arguable that Gerard's younger brother William was perhaps Millicent's son, still a child in 1150, but any genealogist working after the publication of Dugdale's Monasticon who failed to consider the alternative is probably not a reliable authority. Peter Stewart

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 11:18:58 AM UTC-7, Jan Wolfe wrote: > If the various generations of Spynes acquired their lands by purchase > rather than marriage, what was the source of the Spyne wealth? This is rarely something that can be determined - aside from inheritance or royal grant, it is often difficult to determine the source of a family's wealth. That being said, I don't think we should dismiss inheritance just yet. First of all, just because we can't now find documentation to support the marriages doesn't mean they did not occur. Likewise, even if the details of the marriages are incorrect, it does not exclude the possibility that some of their lands were acquired by inheritance, just a different inheritance than that traditionally assigned. taf

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 11:29:28 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote: > Em sábado, 18 de junho de 2016 14:17:58 UTC+1, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com escreveu: > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > > Now that I understand that the Camville line breaks down because the > > mother of William de Camville isn't Milicent de Rethel but instead > > Richard de Camville's first wife Alice, does anyone have evidence who > > this Alice is? > > We can´t be sure the line breaks down we don´t have enough information > to say who is the mother of William but the genealogists seem to support > Millicent. We can't be absolutely positively sure that William was not son of Millicent, but it is extremely unlikely that he was. 'The genealogists' first drew the conclusion that William the younger was son of Millicent simply because Millicent was documented as wife of William the elder. Given what they had in hand, this was a reasonable assumption - if a man only had one known wife, then the default conclusion is that his legitimate children were born to that wife, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, at the time they lacked the precise details on the pattern of inheritance of Millicent's land, which is exactly the kind of evidence to the contrary that suggests that the older sons of the elder William were not children of Millicent. This is a case where we have to be willing to reevaluate old assumptions, whatever the cost to our tree, and when we do this we find that in all likelihood the line breaks, that William was likely son of an earlier wife and not Millicent. taf

Em sábado, 18 de junho de 2016 14:17:58 UTC+1, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com escreveu: > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > > This came from the 2008 RD600 (if I've copied it correctly): > > King Louis IV of France d. 954 = Gerbera dau. Of Henry I the Fowler, German Emperor, their son: > > Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine = Adelaide; their daughter: > > Adelaide of Lower Lorraine = Albert I Count of Namur; their son: > > Albert II Count of Namur = Regelinde of Lower Lorraine; their son: > > Albert III, Count of Namur = Ida of Saxony; their son: > > Geoffrey, Count of Namur = Sybil of Chateau-Porcien: their daughter: > > Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter: > > Milicent of Rethel = (2) Richard de Camville; their son: > > William de Camville = Aubree de Marmion; their son: > > William de Camville = Iseuda; their son: > > Thomas = Agnes; their daughter: > > Felicia de Camville = Phillip Durvassal; their son: > > Thomas Durvassal= Margery; their daughter: > > Margery Durvassal = William de la Spine; their son: > > William de la Spine = Alice de Bruley; their son: > > Sir Guy de la Spine/Spinney = Katherine; their daughter: > > Eleanor Spinney = Sir John Throckmorton; their daughter: > > Agnes Throckmorton = Thomas Winslow; their daughter: > > Agnes Winslow = John Giffard; their son: > > Thomas Giffard = Joan Langston; their daughter: > > Amy Giffard = Richard Samwell; their daughter: > > Susanna Samwell = Peter Edwards; their son: > > Edward Edwards = Ursula Coles; their daughter: > > Margaret Edwards = Henry Freeman; their daughter: > > Alice Freeman (of Massachusetts and Connecticut) = (1) John Thompson; (2) Robert Parke > > > > I keep asking why the lines back from gateway Alice Freeman are no longer valid. I keep getting answers that this is everyone's understanding except for back to Ethelred II they are gone. > > So could someone tell me where this line breaks down? > > I know some of you don't care for gateways but I haven't found another newsgroup that really deals effectively going back. So here I am again. > > Thank you scholars, researchers, historians, for all your help. > > Cynthia Montgomery > > Now that I understand that the Camville line breaks down because the mother of William de Camville isn't Milicent de Rethel but instead Richard de Camville's first wife Alice, does anyone have evidence who this Alice is? We can´t be sure the line breaks down we don´t have enough information to say who is the mother of William but the genealogists seem to support Millicent.

Thanks Patrick, Todd, and John, for information and analysis of sources and claims concerning the wives of the various generations of Spynes. VCH Warwickshire in the section about Coughton, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol3/pp74-86, discusses a number of land transactions related to the Spynes. While surnames attributed to wives in the various Spyne generations occur in these transactions, there doesn't seem to be any clear indication that any of these transactions resulted from marriages. The given names Joan, Margery, and Alice for Spyne wives are mentioned in these transactions. The marriage settlement for John Throckmorton and Eleanor Spyne (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/rd/f5db12f8-2140-4fbd-b0e8-7795d7bca190) confirms the given name of Guy's wife was Katherine. If the various generations of Spynes acquired their lands by purchase rather than marriage, what was the source of the Spyne wealth?

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 9:13:37 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > This book states: > > "Sir John Throckmorton, son of Thomas and Agnes, was responsible for the acquisition of the current family seat at Coughton. On 25 June 1409, Sir John married Alianore, daughter and co-heiress of Sir Guy de la Spine by his wife Katherine, daughter of John Holt and Alianore Durvassal." > > https://books.google.com/books?id=RYoMXDQdlFEC&pg=PA173&dq=%22de+la+spine%22+throckmorton&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqh_Dw_bbNAhVDSCYKHfRdCewQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&q=%22de%20la%20spine%22%20throckmorton&f=false > > This is quite different from the line presented in the first posting in the thread. Yes, but I posted back in January how this proposed Durvassal / Holt / Throckmorton connection is based on nothing more than the fact that John Holt's wife and John Throckmorton's wife were both named Eleanor, and further that the inheritance of Spernore (entailed to the right heirs of John and Joyce Durvassal), by William Spernore's daughters on the death of Walter Holt demonstrates that Walter Holt did not have any surviving sisters - indeed that the entire descent from Nicholas Durvassal, Walter's grandfather, must have become extinct. taf

On 20/06/2016 1:12 AM, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > > I agree that many novices quickly advance to the stage where they can > recognize the difference between good and dreadful sources, but I have > also encountered too many who still can't tell the difference after > years of "experience." Also, there are too many bad genealogists who > are pretty good at putting enough "window dressing" on their work to > make it look better documented than it is. Many novices have difficulty > distinguishing such work from good research. > This is unfortunately true, and I'm afraid there is often no remedy in more experience. As we can plainly see from current events in the USA, a certain proportion of humankind exults in wilful ignorance. Their idea of logic is "I don't know it, therefore it isn't known" and/or "I don't like you and believe the opposite, therefore I am right and you must do as I wish". Contrariness and infantile self-centredness are fundamental character flaws that can't be educated out of some people, including some genealogists (as well as an appalling lot of voters). A settlement by consensus is only worthwhile insofar as the group assent is informed, reasoned and free of self-interest. Wiki seems to me no more likely a means to achieve this than an open primary or a caucus where many of the attendees are wishful enthusiasts. Peter Stewart

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 8:43:26 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89066038720;view=1up;seq=198 There are a couple of things here I would take issue with. First, he says of William Spernore/Durvassal that he is "reasonably thought to have been an illegitimate son of John Durvassal", and later "Spernore came into the possession of the bastard son, William". I kept expecting an explanation for this reasonable thought, but none came. We now know that William came into possession via a grant, jointly, to Joyce, widow of John, and to William, that William then held it for life. He later says that Rose, widow of Nicholas sued William for possession, "but without success, for William remained in possession until his death." Without success is all relative, because they agreed that William would only hold it for life and then it would revert to the right heirs of John and Joyce, Rose's, daughters (and eventually, her grandson). It was only after he died s.p. that it went back to William's children. In other words, Rose won, just not right away. It is hard to judge without seeing the agreement in question, but the inheritance by William's daughters could only have come one of two ways - first, that they were right heirs of John and Joyce and hence Walter's natural heirs to the property, or second, that the original grant left reversion, first to the issue of John and Joyce, then to William and his right heirs. I have yet to see anyone comment that the latter was the case, but without seeing the accord, we can't be certain. If the first of these was the case, William must have been legitimate, if the latter, he was illegitimate (else as right heir he would not have needed a special reversion), which again has me wondering what the 'reasonable thought' is. taf

This book states: "Sir John Throckmorton, son of Thomas and Agnes, was responsible for the acquisition of the current family seat at Coughton. On 25 June 1409, Sir John married Alianore, daughter and co-heiress of Sir Guy de la Spine by his wife Katherine, daughter of John Holt and Alianore Durvassal." https://books.google.com/books?id=RYoMXDQdlFEC&pg=PA173&dq=%22de+la+spine%22+throckmorton&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqh_Dw_bbNAhVDSCYKHfRdCewQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&q=%22de%20la%20spine%22%20throckmorton&f=false This is quite different from the line presented in the first posting in the thread.

Taf >This is why a project that does not limit contribution rights is bound to run into all the problems we have been talking about with the open access sites. But just to make it clear, my comments about wiki software as a platform for working on articles in an online team are not meant to be an argument that all work should be done as massively open online work. Wikis do not need to be set-up that way. (Even on Wikipedia itself articles are often locked to normal editors, who can only contribute to those articles by proposing changes or drafts that then need to be approved by more senior editors. So the possibility exists. But on Wikipedia this is only used in emergency situations.) In the side discussion about whether it is inevitable that the big wikis will eventually be better, I think we can just leave it open and find out. I work on big wikis and I hope, but I often despair also! On the other hand no small wiki has really turned up to contribute to anyway (which I think is partly because of the limitations of the media being used). The small group online collaborations so far have mainly turned out looking like personal websites, or a sort of online journal, or a blog, because (I think) it is very hard to maintain free flowing teamwork, even with 3 people, if the system involves writing articles, passing them around, and then uploading them one by one. Regards Andrew

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89066038720;view=1up;seq=198

Dear Patrick and all, VCH Warwickshire is available at British History Online.  This might throw some light on the Durvassal-Spiney=plus perhaps Holt issues.  The archives may have some discussion also. Kay Allen On Sunday, June 19, 2016 7:40 AM, Patrick Nielsen Hayden via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: On 2016-06-18 14:39:43 +0000, Jan Wolfe said: > On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:17:58 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, >> cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: >>> This came from the 2008 RD600 (if I've copied it correctly): >>> King Louis IV of France d. 954 = Gerbera dau. Of Henry I the Fowler, >>> German Emperor, their son: >>> Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine = Adelaide; their daughter: >>> Adelaide of Lower Lorraine = Albert I Count of Namur; their son: >>> Albert II Count of Namur = Regelinde of Lower Lorraine; their son: >>> Albert III, Count of Namur = Ida of Saxony; their son: >>> Geoffrey, Count of Namur = Sybil of Chateau-Porcien: their daughter: >>> Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter: >>> Milicent of Rethel = (2) Richard de Camville; their son: >>> William de Camville = Aubree de Marmion; their son: >>> William de Camville = Iseuda; their son: >>> Thomas = Agnes; their daughter: >>> Felicia de Camville = Phillip Durvassal; their son: >>> Thomas Durvassal= Margery; their daughter: >>> Margery Durvassal = William de la Spine; their son: >>> William de la Spine = Alice de Bruley; their son: >>> Sir Guy de la Spine/Spinney = Katherine; their daughter: >>> Eleanor Spinney = Sir John Throckmorton; their daughter: >>> Agnes Throckmorton = Thomas Winslow; their daughter: >>> Agnes Winslow = John Giffard; their son: >>> Thomas Giffard = Joan Langston; their daughter: >>> Amy Giffard = Richard Samwell; their daughter: >>> Susanna Samwell = Peter Edwards; their son: >>> Edward Edwards = Ursula Coles; their daughter: >>> Margaret Edwards = Henry Freeman; their daughter: >>> Alice Freeman (of Massachusetts and Connecticut) = (1) John Thompson; >>> (2) Robert Parke >>> >>> I keep asking why the lines back from gateway Alice Freeman are no >>> longer valid. I keep getting answers that this is everyone's >>> understanding except for back to Ethelred II they are gone. >>> So could someone tell me where this line breaks down? >>> I know some of you don't care for gateways but I haven't found another >>> newsgroup that really deals effectively going back. So here I am again. >>> Thank you scholars, researchers, historians, for all your help. >>> Cynthia Montgomery >> >> Now that I understand that the Camville line breaks down because the >> mother of William de Camville isn't Milicent de Rethel but instead >> Richard de Camville's first wife Alice, does anyone have evidence who >> this Alice is? > > What is the evidence for the identity of the wives of the two William > de la Spines in this pedigree? I'd like to know that myself. The two secondary sources I have handy which assert these marriages are Henry James Young's _The Blackmans of Knight's Creek_ and Gary Boyd Roberts' _The Royal Descent of 600 Immigrants_ etc (2008 edition), the source cited by Cynthia Ann Montgomery in starting this thread. Both are works that concatenate their citations in such a way that makes it a bit challenging to establish which source confirms which piece of information. Young's references for the Bruley family are _The Quatremains of Oxfordshire_ by William F. Carter (1936) and _Memorials of the Danvers Family_ by F. N. Macnamara (1895). For the Durvassals, he cites Dugdale's _Antiquities of Warwickshire_, page 757, and _The Genealogist_ n.s., volume 10, page 31. And for the Spinney/Spine/Spineto family, he cites only Charles Wickliffe Throckmorton's 1930 _A Genealogical and Historical Account of the Throckmorton Family in England and the United States_. I don't have immediate access to _The Quatremains of Oxfordshire_. But the other sources are easy to find online. The Bruley discussion in _Memorials of the Danvers Family_ doesn't mention an "Alice de Bruley", let alone anyone named de la Spine (or variants). _Antiquities of Warwickshire_ doesn't anywhere, as best as I can tell, mention a Margery Durvassal marrying a William de Spineto/Spine/etc. And the _Genealogist_ page referred to shows merely a brief Durvassal pedigree from a pipe roll which, again, makes no mention of a Margery. Gary Boyd Roberts' list of references on page 559 of the 2008 edition of his _Royal Descent of 600 Immigrants_, following his presentation of the pedigree under discussion, includes, for the generations in question, Young's _Blackmans of Knight's Creek_, Dugdale's _Antiquities of Warwickshire_, _The Wallop Family_ (which doesn't mention any Spinetos/Spynes/Spinneys prior to the Sir Guy Spiney of Coughton whose daughter married a Throckmorton), an ancestor table by Brice McAdoo Clagett in the _Maryland Genealogical Society Bulletin 31 (1989-90): 136:53, "corrected in part in [McAdoo's] forthcoming _Seven Centuries: Ancestors for Twenty Generations of John Brice de Treville Clagett and Ann Calvert Brooke Clagett_" (neither of which I have access to), and ... Charles Wickliffe Throckmorton's book. So unless William F. Carter's 1936 _The Quatremains of Oxfordshire_, and/or the two works by Brice McAdoo Clagett (one of them unpublished, as far as I know) contain evidence for the marriages of William de Spineto (etc, d. bef. 1317) of Coughton, Warwickshire to Margary Durvassal, daughter of Thomas Durvassal (d. bef. 1329) of Spernore, Warwickshire, and of his son William Spyne (etc) to Alice de Bruley, daughter of William Bruley of Aston Bruley, Warwickshire, himself a son of Sir Henry de Bruley and Katherine Foliot ... I think we have to conclude that both Young's and Roberts's main source for these marriages was Col. Charles Wickliffe Throckmorton's 1930 _A Genealogical and Historical Account of the Throckmorton Family in England and the United States_. Which does indeed show these marriages. Let's look at what the Colonel has to say. "Alice=William de Spine" appears at the bottom of Col. Throckmorton's "Bruley Pedigree" facing page 64, and both marriages are shown on the "Spine and Durvassal Pedigree" facing page 68. In the latter pedigree, the marriage of William to Margery Durvassal is footnoted "In 26 Edw. I. (1300) he bought the de Bruley interest in Cocton from Sir Wm. Tuchet, knt., who had inherited them from the Bishop of Ely. (Coughton Records and Dugdale.) In Ireland 1291-3, and in 1294 in Wales with the king for the war. (Chancery Warrants, 1294-1326, p. 47.)" The marriage of the younger William to "Alice, dau. of William de Bruley" is footnoted "In 22 Edw. III., William de Espinge, lord of Cocton, lets farm to Wm. de Bruley, son of the former Henry le Bruley, knt., a messuage in Cocton. In 36 Edw. III., William Spine quitclaimed to Sybil, who was formerly the wife of John Durvassal, and heirs of her body all right in the manor of Spernore. He was living 44 Edw. III. Commissioner for arraying of Archers for French wars, 19 Edw. III. (Dugdale and Coughton Records.)" Regarding the first of these two footnotes, it's worth pointing out that 26 Edward I was 20 Nov 1297 to 19 Nov 1298, not "1300" as Throckmorton says. The Colonel's shaky grasp of reignal dating has been noted elsewhere. Col. Throckmorton's actual narrative of the Spine family runs from pages 64 to 66, following a discussion of the de Coctons, a daughter of whom, Throckmorton says, married the William de la Spine who was father to the elder of the two Williams being discussed in this post. Interestingly, this narrative passage doesn't mention any marriages to de Bruleys or Durvassals. Following his discussion of Guy de la Spine, knight of the shire, whose daughter Alianore married John Throckmorton, Col. Throckmorton says "I have given above nearly verbatim the account of the Cocton and Spine families from Wrottesley of Wrottesley by the Right Honorable Major General Sir George Wrottesley and from the Antiquities of Warwickshire by Sir William Dugdale". It's notable that George Wrottesley's _History of the Family of Wrottesley of Wrottesley, Co. Stafford_ (1903) doesn't mention the Spines at all, and Dugdale's _Antiquities of Warwickshire_, while it does discuss the Spines (volume 2, p. 748-49), makes (as noted previously) no mention of a marriage to a Margary Durvassal, and the name given for the wife of the younger William Spine is merely "Alicia." In other words, the evidence presented by Throckmorton for the Bruley and Durvassal marriages consists entirely of his entries on two pedigree charts, accompanied by footnotes which -- and I acknowledge that I'm merely an interested amateur; I'd be delighted to be shown wrong here -- don't seem to me to present information demonstrating that these marriages actually happened. I admit that I'm predisposed to be suspicious of Colonel Throckmorton's book, because I've read John G. Hunt and Henry J. Young's article "Ravens or Pelicans: Who was Joan de Harley?" (_The Genealogist_, even newer series, 1:27, Spring 1980), which entertainly demolished Col. Throckmorton's claim that Alexander Besford, a Worcestershire knight of the shire who died about 1400 and who was an ancestor to (among other early New England immigrants) Alice Freeman of Connecticut and John Throckmorton of Rhode Island, was son to a Joan de Harley who was herself daughter of Joan Corbet, dau. of Sir Robert Corbet, and thus descended from Louis IV of France, Henry "the Fowler", Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, the dukes of Normandy, and various other medieval eminences. In the process, Hunt and Young (the latter of whom I assume to be the same individual that compiled _The Blackmans of Knight's Creek_) make some observations about Col. Throckmorton's methods: "In the scholarly articles of [G. Andrews] Moriarty the pedigree emerges inevitably from the original documents consulted; by contrast, the Colonel uses his documents for verisimilitude and ornamentation, almost as a smoke screen, relying ultimately on his hunch. [...] Even his citations are lifted, not always accurately, without acknowledgement of the immediate source." "Using documents for verisimilitude and ornamentation, almost as a smoke screen" looks to me very much like a description of Throckmorton's two footnotes transcribed above, and it really doesn't encourage me to give much credibility to a pair of marriages for which his pedigrees appear to be the only actual source. Further destruction of the Colonel's credibility can be found in Paul C. Reed's article nine years later, again in _The Genealogist_ (10:1, Spring 1989), "Another Look at Joan de Harley: Will Her Real Descendants Please Rise?", which in the process of bouncing the rubble made a good case that the Colonel's methodological problems were not occasional or intermittent. Again, I'm merely an interested amateur; I'd be happy to learn that I'm wrong about any of this. It seems to me likely that many of the people reading this are far more familiar with this material than I am. (I certainly suspect that Jan Wolfe is.) I'm basically trying to reason as best I can from the materials available to me, and within the limitations of my knowledge. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden pnh@panix.com about.me/patricknh http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 2016-06-19 20:43:17 +0000, Nancy Piccirilli via said: > Happy Father's Day > I am eagerly reading all the articles in the latest Foundations, and have a > question about the article by Andrew MacEwen, John P. Ravilious and Rosie > Bevan, "Gang Warily! Juliana de Reveley and the Randolphs." On pp. 34-5 the > authors state that "Sir Hugh de Morwick III's wife was Agnes daughter and > heir of Roger de Heyford ..... by his wife Margery, daughter of Thomas > Gobion of Higham Gobion. Beds, by Agnes de Merlay his wife." I went to > G.Andrews Moriarty's Gobion-Merlay article, NEHG Register Vol. 79, but I > could not find a Thomas Gobion there. There was a Richard Gobion of Higham > Gobion who married an Agnes de Merlay; could "Thomas" be a typo for > "Richard"? > Thanks , Nancy I wrote to John Ravilious and Rosie Bevan about this exact issue, and got an immediate answer from Rosie Bevan confirming that "Thomas Gobion" was indeed a typo for "Richard Gobion" and that she'd try to get the FMG to correct it as soon as possible. Reloading the article just now, it appears it's been fixed. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden pnh@panix.com about.me/patricknh http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/index.php

On 19/06/2016 4:11 PM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > Thierry Ganchou has suggested that Valenza was the daughter of Jacopo > Gattilusio, whom Niccolò Crispo called his father-in-law. If she was > instead Niccolò's second wife, presumed to have been daughter of a Megas > Komnenos of Trebizond, then her father was more probably Alexios IV than > Manuel III. But if the latter, and she was baptised Eudokia, then her > mother was far more likely to have been Manuel's second wife Anna than > his first who had herself taken the name Eudokia. Chronologically this > is also more plausible, since Gulkhan/Eudokia died in 1395 whereas > Niccolò Crispo evidently married for the second time after the death of > a Genoese wife who was living in 1418. Apologies, this is misleading, making it seem definite that Niccolò Crispo was married twice: for all we know he had only one wife, named Valenza, living in 1418, who was from a Genoese family. Michel Kuršanskis has speculated that she may have come from Trebbia on the Ligurian coast, that Ramusio writing a century later mistook this as an abbreviation for Trebizond, and that he based his story of the actual Trapezuntine princess Theodora calling Caterino Zeno her "nephew" on this mistake. Peter Stewart

> On 20/06/2016 1:12 AM, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > > > > > I agree that many novices quickly advance to the stage where they can > > recognize the difference between good and dreadful sources, but I have > > also encountered too many who still can't tell the difference after > > years of "experience." There are those who never figure out that you have to be willing to question everything, even published material. I have been hitting a brick wall trying to get someone to change a Find-a-Grave entry. I showed him the actual baptismal record, plus the memorial stone itself gives her an age in perfect agreement with the baptism, but his book from the 1800s says she is mother of a man who in actuality was her contemporary, so he has back-dated her birth by 23 years (though he kept the day and month of the baptism). I initially got him to change the birthdate but when someone else pointed out this would make her too young to be mother of the next generation, his solution was to moved it back again, then dig in his heals and argue that the baptismal record and the stone must both be in error. Meanwhile her husband is given a birthdate 50 years before his own supposed parents married, but again the marriage record must be wrong because otherwise it would break the connection. It is absolutely ludicrous, and worse yet, it has given rise to 4800 pedigrees on Ancestry, not a one of them with the right chronology (although this is a biased sample - those with the right chronology would break the link and hence the people in question wouldn't even be in those pedigrees). As Stewart suggests, some people just don't get it and never will. On Sunday, June 19, 2016 at 5:04:51 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart via wrote: > A settlement by consensus is only worthwhile insofar as the group assent > is informed, reasoned and free of self-interest. This is why a project that does not limit contribution rights is bound to run into all the problems we have been talking about with the open access sites. taf

On Sunday, June 19, 2016 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-7, Kay Allen via wrote: > Dear Patrick and all, > VCH Warwickshire is available at British History Online.  This might throw some light on the Durvassal-Spiney=plus perhaps Holt issues.  The archives may have some discussion also. VCH Warwickshire is rather unhelpful, at least from the Durvassal side. It even questions that the women who sold to John Throckmorton were William Durvassal's granddaughters: "Joan, according to Dugdale, was the granddaughter of William Durvassal, but there seems no foundation for his guess." Yet we know from one of his ipms that William died with heirs Margaret and Joyce. Frederick William Hackwood in "Wednesbury ancient and modern: being mainly its manorial and municipal history", p. 41, reports the following. It does not cite the documents on which it is based, but is clearly derived from primary sources: "Henry Heronville, lord of Wednesbury, married Margaret, the daughter and heir of William Sperner. He died about St. Matthew's Day, 1406, after holding the Manor only three years. More than twenty years afterwards his name, his marriage, and his untimely death, transpire in the course of a long lawsuit." "From the records of a prolonged trial over the manor of Frankley in Worcestershire, still proceeding in the year 1430, it would appear that Margaret, the wife of Henry Heronville, was a daughter of William Spernore, and that Joyce, wife of William Swynfen, was another daughter, and that they claimed the right of remainder in the manor of Frankley, which should descend to them on the death of their mother Alice, they being their deceased father's only heirs. The two heiresses, and Swynfen, the husband of one being under age, prayed that the suit should remain till they arrived at full age; and strangely enough Henry Heronville, the husband of the other heiress, died while the trial was pending." His ipm lists his heirs as Joan, Alice and Margaret: http://www.history.ac.uk/cipm-19-part-i [no. 72] On the next page Hackwood goes on to say: "In 1420 the two younger daughters of the deceased Henry Heronville became nuns, Alice being over seventeen years of age, and Margaret under seventeen at the time of taking the veil. At the formal inquiry, which was then taken on oath (exactly as if each girl was dead to the world), it was given in evidence that they were co-heiresses in the manor of Wednesbury, the manor of Tymmore, and lands in "Tibyton," with their "sister Joan, wife of William Leventhorpe," who was their nearest heir. These inquisitions are here: http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/21-194/ http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/21-195/ The next part was documented back in 1904 in a lawsuit over the Leventhorpe inheritance: ". . . that after the decease of the said William, Jane his wife should have the same for her life if she lived after his decease without husband, and if she took another husband, that then the right heirs of the same William should have the said lands and rents to them and their heirs. And the same William Leventhorp died, after whose decease the said Jane took to husband Henry Beamond, and after the same Henry died, after whose decease the same Jane took to husband Charles Nowell, and after the said Elizabeth, mother of the said John Hudleston, died, after whose decease, and after that the said Jane had taken to husband the said Charles Nowell, . . ." So there can be little doubt that Dugdale was doing more than guessing: Jane, wife of Henry Beaumont was daughter of Margaret (wife of Henry Heronville), daughter of William Durvassal als. Spernore. For the other heiress, remember we have Joyce, daughter of William Spernore married to William Swynfen. The last connection is them provided by Mill Stephenson in his "Monumental Brasses of Shropshire", Arch. Jour. vol 52, quotes Stebbing Shaw's History and Antiquities of Staffordshire (which I cannot find online): "John de la Hay, rector, grants to Richard Whitehill for life a moiety of certain lands in Rushale and Wallesal, co. Stafford, remainder to Margaret wife of William de Vernon, daughter and heir of Jocosa, late wife of William Swynfen, Esq., and to her heirs for ever." So the entire proof that the grantors of Spernore were the granddaughters of William Spernore was available when the editors dismissed it as an unfounded guess in 1945. taf

On 19/06/2016 4:11 PM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > Thierry Ganchou has suggested that Valenza was the daughter of Jacopo > Gattilusio, whom Niccolò Crispo called his father-in-law. I should have written that Guillaume Saint-Guillain and Thierry Ganchou (as a result of their discussions) suggested this relationship. Peter Stewart

Happy Father's Day I am eagerly reading all the articles in the latest Foundations, and have a question about the article by Andrew MacEwen, John P. Ravilious and Rosie Bevan, "Gang Warily! Juliana de Reveley and the Randolphs." On pp. 34-5 the authors state that "Sir Hugh de Morwick III's wife was Agnes daughter and heir of Roger de Heyford ..... by his wife Margery, daughter of Thomas Gobion of Higham Gobion. Beds, by Agnes de Merlay his wife." I went to G.Andrews Moriarty's Gobion-Merlay article, NEHG Register Vol. 79, but I could not find a Thomas Gobion there. There was a Richard Gobion of Higham Gobion who married an Agnes de Merlay; could "Thomas" be a typo for "Richard"? Thanks , Nancy

On 19/06/2016 2:08 PM, Darrel Hockley via wrote: > Well maybe at some point some lost information will come to light on who was what. I do not know if DNA testing of any descendants of Nicholas Crispo would help or not in solving the issue - I am thinking of the "Family Finder" test that Family Tree DNA offers. > Darrel Hockley > > From: Peter Stewart via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 8:04 PM > Subject: Re: Fw: Nicholas Crispo (1392 to 1450) > > On Sunday, June 19, 2016 at 5:37:41 AM UTC+10, Darrel Hockley via wrote: >> I originally sent the below to Dr. Williams' email address, but it >> "bounced back" to me, so now I have posted it to the List. >> Darrel Hockley >> >> >> ----- Forwarded Message ----- >> From: Darrel Hockley <ddh_regina@yahoo.ca> >> To: Dr. Kelsey Jackson Williams <kelsey@scotsgenealogist.com> >> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 1:32 PM >> Subject: Nicholas Crispo (1392 to 1450) >> >> Hello Dr. Williams, >> I have been reading about Caterino Zeno, Patrician of Venice and >> Diplomat of the Venetian Republic and am thinking there may be a >> connexion to the House of Komnenos in his case. >> >> In the Wilki article on Nicholas Crispo, Lord of Syros and Patrician >> of Venice (1392 to 1450), it states he married in 1413 Eudokia >> (Valenza) Komnena. > This appears to be an error - according to Michel Kuršanskis we don't know if Valenza was the first wife of Niccolò, a Genoese lady who died shortly after 1418, or his second wife who may have been a Komnene from Trebizond given an Italian name, perhaps a daughter of Alexis IV or possibly of Manuel III (see 'Une alliance problématique au XVe siècle: le mariage de Valenza Comnena, fille d’un empereur de Trébizonde, à Niccolò Crispo, seigneur de Santorin', in *Archeion Pontou* 30 (1970–1971) 94-106). > > Peter Stewart > > I'm puzzled as to how you suppose DNA testing might help - for starters, whose DNA would be available to test, and whose to compare the results? Thierry Ganchou has suggested that Valenza was the daughter of Jacopo Gattilusio, whom Niccolò Crispo called his father-in-law. If she was instead Niccolò's second wife, presumed to have been daughter of a Megas Komnenos of Trebizond, then her father was more probably Alexios IV than Manuel III. But if the latter, and she was baptised Eudokia, then her mother was far more likely to have been Manuel's second wife Anna than his first who had herself taken the name Eudokia. Chronologically this is also more plausible, since Gulkhan/Eudokia died in 1395 whereas Niccolò Crispo evidently married for the second time after the death of a Genoese wife who was living in 1418. In any event, none of these people has modern descendants in direct male or female lines who could provide useful Y- or Mt-DNA, even if you could find 15th-century remains to extract comparison samples. How else would you propose to go about it? Peter Stewart